This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

S.D. won't appeal injunction to blunt limits on abortions

South Dakota won't appeal an injunction that stops a restrictive abortion law from taking effect, Attorney General Marty Jackley said Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier granted a request from Planned Parenthood to block the implementation of House Bill 1217 on June 30.

Although I am in favor of a woman's choice, this law was reasonable. All it asked for was for a woman seeking an abortion to wait 3 days, during which time she seek counseling. If, after that, she still wanted the abortion, she could get it. Considering that getting an abortion is a huge decision, I feel that this law was reasonable.

Re: S.D. won't appeal injunction to blunt limits on abortions

Originally Posted by danarhea

Although I am in favor of a woman's choice, this law was reasonable. All it asked for was for a woman seeking an abortion to wait 3 days, during which time she seek counseling. If, after that, she still wanted the abortion, she could get it. Considering that getting an abortion is a huge decision, I feel that this law was reasonable.

I think it's part of a way to circumvent Roe v. Wade. By placing as many barriers as possible and lowering the maximum time-since-conception, the goal is to shrink the window between when pregnancy is detectable and when abortion becomes illegal.

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

Re: S.D. won't appeal injunction to blunt limits on abortions

I will continue to say that to reduce abortions to a reasonable number (which to me would be almost ZERO, but hat's never going to happen) we need better education and affordable means of prevention to all.

This had gotten out of control in the last 30 years and needs to stop.

Reasonable people should be able to see the truth of the this.

Abortion as birth control has got to stop because it is unnecessary in this century.

Re: S.D. won't appeal injunction to blunt limits on abortions

I don't believe the law was reasonable. There are very few places in this country where a woman can get an abortion. In a sparsely populated state like South Dakota, it's reasonable to presume that the woman will have to incurr travel expenses even to reach an abortion clinic. Once she is there, she must then pay for a hotel room for three days, find a "counselor" who will see her within that 3-day limit, then pay to have the counseling. This law makes getting an abortion prohibitively expensive, throwing up roadblocks that all too many women would be unable to navigate, time-wise and finance-wise. It's a thinly-veiled attempt to circumvent a woman's right to choose, nothing more.